The only answer that makes sense from people who believe is 'fear'.
There's the other group, though, that claims because god is the source of good, anything it does is good, regardless of how it appears to us. I find this to be stupid, as would most.
Goddess, no... That's an TERRIBLE idea. The masses vote for laws that benifit them, and to hell with anyone else. Free speach would be killed off by that kind of change. Blacks and women would have never gotten the right to vote. Etc. etc.
Never make the mistake of thinking that the majority of people are less stupid than the average person.
I love RPGs. You can get so much useful information out of the sourcebooks.
I learned more about economics from Shadowrun Corporate Sourcebook than from my Microeconomics class in college...
More on topic, though, the book (apparently a textbook) is referanced here.
That strategy is called "Revolutionary Parliamentarianism" and is well known in modern totalitarian circles. William Z. Foster, national chairman of the American Communist Party from 1933 to 1957, identified this strategy by name in his 1932 book Toward a Soviet America. 'In carrying out its class struggle program the Communist party practices revolutionary parliamentarianism...'Foster tated...A detailed explanation of this strategy appeared in spring in the 1950s as two chapters in a textbook used by the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia.
You do realize that sig is very cruel when your posting history is cut off before it goes back far enough for the very curious to see what your original sig was?
Considering the other features, I'd be interested in the thing... But RPN is out (for what I do, it's much less efficient, and no, I'm not going into it again). Algebraic mode is what would allow you to input things in about the same way as a TI-85, right? So you can shut off RPN mode?
Has anyone used a TI Voyage 200? How's is it? Are the pixels square or rectangular? (that last one applies to both, I didn't see that noted one way or the other in the HP one) That is important to know.
You are roughly correct. I happen to be a Mechanical Engineer in a company that sells instruments of highly complex type (the first product I was on was the $70,000 front end to a $500,000 instrument).
Depending on the part, you get different lives. Seals (we build pumps, to oversimplify) are expected to last at least one PM cycle (1 year of life, tested to 3X to eliminate small sample set issues (small because you can't test thousands of these things)). Things like the motors, etc. are designed to give 5 years of life (5 years is the instrument design life, again tested to 3X, so most (but by no means all) will last longer with proper maintenance). In our case, the warrantee is decided beforehand for the most part. We build to match.
Believe me, we can't make a product that fails right after the proverbial 90 days. If we did that, about 30% of them would fail in warrantee, and that would be EXPENSIVE. Very expensive. We generally want well under a 1% failure rate.
Something less complex can be done a little closer, but figure that anything needs at least a 30% buffer. Overdesign costs less than warrantee replacements.
That too. But the corners would generate vorteces. I didn't want to talk about pressure vessels and have to open another book.
Mind you, I'm thinking about angles perpindicular to the direction of airflow. I'm not sure what the effect would be on angles where the edge follows the direction of airflow... probably not all that much.
Regardless, I don't think comfort of the passengers is high on the list of design requirements for planes (beyond the basic 'passengers must not die or bleed excessivly') anymore. Efficiency (i.e. streamlined and max people) is the current requirement.
And I don't consider that flamebait. I'm a real engineer too.:)
"Do both not operate on a hypothesis defining the origins of the world, life, and the universe?"
No. See bold for incorrect word. Creationism and ID do not make a hypothesis in the scientific sense.
"Are both not scientific methods used to try to defend these hypotheses?"
No. See above for creationism/ID. Evolution is a theory (scientific terminology, not popular, see below), not a hypothesis.
Hypothesis propose testable results. In the case of creationism/ID, there are none. Prove god exist, scientifically - Can't be done. Prove the earth was created 6000 years ago (young earth creationism) - Demonstratably false. Creationism has no tests that cannot be applied to it, so it fails to be even a hypothesis.
Evolution: Theory. Not only does it have results we can test the validity of (example: result from hypothesis: birds should have more genes in common to other birds than bacteria. Test: Found to be true. Therefore, theory holds up). Even where evolution has 'bugs', it's not in the overarching theory, but in the details. In the large sense, evolution is TRUE. In the large sense, F=ma is true... only in certain details at odd times do you need to modify (not throw out) that fact.
"You may have been subject to a creationist who doesn't use scientific methods to try to defend the creationist stance."
True, if you replace 'a creationist' with 'all creationists'. Even the creationists with science degrees seem to forget the scientific method when they talk about creationism.
"Without being biased, evolution and creation are both theories that are in the process of being proven through scientific method. Both have their 'good' and 'bad' scientists with their methods, but creation is just as viable as a science as evolution."
You are being biased. Creationism does not use the scientific method to determine proof. It relies on untestable statements like 'there is too much complexity in the human body for it to have arisen randomly' (a statement which ignores a large number of facts about evolution, but anyway...). That is not SCIENCE.
"MUST be taught as theory"
Which it is. It's right there in the phrase THEORY OF EVOLUTION in every textbook I know of.
"and if being taught as theory, creation has just as much right to be taught as theory."
Hell no. Again, creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a religious doctrine. ID is creationism in a white coat. No changes, it just claims to be scientific without anything to back it up.
"All theories are viable until one is disproven."
A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven to accuratly reflect the observed facts. Again, evolution passes this challenge, creationism doesn't even get over the starting line.
"If science only works on the assumption that evolution is the only possibility, it is not the pursuit of truth"
Correct. Luckaly for us, science does not assume this. Science has shown that with all the evidance currently available to us, evolution IS true. If we encounter something that disproves it, well, we need a new hypothesis (and once tested, theory), but right now, there is no other theory that comes even close to explaining as much about the origin of species as evolution does.
"Teaching our students 'what we evolved from' when it should be 'what is believed we evolved from' is a crime, if it is a crime to allow voluntary prayer in schools (as has been attested in numerous previous posts in this article)"
They are unrelated. Science is not a religion. The government has a strong interest in science education (well, as strong as it has in education itself, anyway). But the government cannot in any way endorse one religious viewpoint over another. So evolution goes into science classes (it not being a religion or a belief system) and creationism goes to comparitive religion (where many religions are studied, creationism being a belief system not rooted in physically ob
Not to nitpick, but that example is drag, not friction. The reason is turbulence at corners, which will result in vortices, increasing drag.
"Inflated tires have a larger surface area"
Ummmm... true, but this is rolling friction. An underinflated tire and a properly inflated tire will actually require the same amount of force to move... if the tires are locked. The deformation of the tire, lack of possible 'slippery spots', etc. increase the force required to move the tire, but not the friction itself (except in that mechanical engineers prefer to make the whole thing easier to work with by 'distilling' all the variables to one easily measured constant, the coefficient of rolling friction. For example, I can take the torque of hte motor of a pump I built and tell you the maximum pressure it will be able to deliver (seals willing)... But the internal 'friction' comes from friction, efficiency losses in the gear train, 'drag' from the lubrication, seal friction, losses needed to recirculate the balls in the linear ball screw, etc. - but it all boils down to 'multiply torque in in-oz by 300* for pressure')
Now, the increased surface area reduces the heat at any given point, reducing the 'liquid film' effect (like how water film makes it easier to move smooth surfaces) as nothing melts. In this way, rather than increasing the frictional coefficient, you assure that it remains at its maximum.
Oh, and just to be sure, I checked my Design of Machine Elements book, and looked it up. Both dry and thin-film lubrication have the same rule (#2): Friction is independent of area.
"how friction increases with relative velocity"
Drag does, but friction doesn't, mostly. Rule 3, both dry and thin-film: The friction force is largely independent of the velocity of sliding.
And now, for the quote on my wall: Never, but never, question the engineer's judgement.
* not a real number, but damned if I'll look it up on my lunch break.
"But that means that the Supreme court should get Government out of schools, not "under god" out of the pledge.
And why should atheists "opt-out" of the pledge (to the point of a universal ban) but Christians and others not be able to avoid Orgy-education and "we weren't created, we evolved" evolution classes? Note I am not talking what is right (true) or not, but if the standard is one student's offense at a dogma can ban it I just want it to be applied equally."
Well, you seem to be trolling, but I wanted to specifically point out the fundimental wrongness of this part regardless. The government has little legal standing to fund schools, but it has more standing to do that then to force religious doctrine. And there is no doubt that is what 'Under God' does. The government is specifically forbidden from advocating any religion. That referance to god is just as clear an establishment of religion as 'there is no god' would be an establishment of no religion.
And as for evolution... Well, the schools are teaching science, so evolution is required. The schools generally do not teach religion, so creation 'science' and CS-a-likes like ID are not to be taught. If the schools do comparitive religion, then that could easily be added to that portion of the cirriculum, of course. But it's not science.
And it's not 'one student's offense'. It's the government endorsing something that it shouldn't that is the cause of the ban. I don't care if NO students are offended. The government should not, in any way, force religion onto them.
I differ from your opinion of high ground. The high ground would be to waste the time of BOTH evil organizations by causing them to fight each other rather than innocent bystanders.
No, you're totally missing the point. A lot of people would LIKE to vote libitarian, but don't feel that they can because of the chance that the Republicans will get voted in. So while a large percentage (a lot more than voting percentages indicate) would, in fact, support a 3rd party as better, winner-take-all means they feel they CANNOT because they must, essentially, vote AGAINST the worse of the 2 candidates by voting for his opponent (the opponent who 'has a chance')
That's why, if I were rewriting the constitution, I'd make the senate/house more of a parliment style, where everyone actually does get represented.
First, legalization, even with a 200% tax, would still drop the price through the floor.
Second, adults that can't control themselves are the problem, not drugs. Addiction rates to drugs (including alchohol and tobacco) remain as a constant percentage. The people just decide to get addicted to something else.
And, like prohibition, most of the reason there are crimes associated with drugs are because criminals are the only ones who can sell drugs. You can be damn sure 7-11 won't be accepting stolen stereos for a pack of pot.
Removing the requirement that you pay people a barely adequate wage is not an adequate solution to the problem... Now instead of their being no entry level jobs, no one can afford to TAKE entry level jobs.
Ballots can't always solve the problems. As is fairly obvious. No one votes for 3rd parties because of winner takes all. And no winner will change it because they benifit too much.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't dismiss the 'other group' so quickly. It's actually a relitivly large group in the theology world.
Where else are we supposed to read it? Especially the Song of Solomon... Now there's some good material for you.
There's the other group, though, that claims because god is the source of good, anything it does is good, regardless of how it appears to us. I find this to be stupid, as would most.
Never make the mistake of thinking that the majority of people are less stupid than the average person.
I used an egg timer.
Excelent. I'm moving my Linux DVD box to the shed.
I'm thinking this statement is true even if you spell 'little world' as 'ass'.
I learned more about economics from Shadowrun Corporate Sourcebook than from my Microeconomics class in college...
More on topic, though, the book (apparently a textbook) is referanced here.
You do realize that sig is very cruel when your posting history is cut off before it goes back far enough for the very curious to see what your original sig was?
True, but SCO doesn't HAVE a good legal department. It has a good marketing department* masquerading as a legal department.
* Of course it's good... Look at their stock price!
1) I believe the terahertz waves are screwed up by metal.
2) Time to start sending little foil origami cranes when you pay your bills. Or does anyone have a site that has an origami 'bird' *cough*?
Considering the other features, I'd be interested in the thing... But RPN is out (for what I do, it's much less efficient, and no, I'm not going into it again). Algebraic mode is what would allow you to input things in about the same way as a TI-85, right? So you can shut off RPN mode?
Has anyone used a TI Voyage 200? How's is it? Are the pixels square or rectangular? (that last one applies to both, I didn't see that noted one way or the other in the HP one) That is important to know.
Depending on the part, you get different lives. Seals (we build pumps, to oversimplify) are expected to last at least one PM cycle (1 year of life, tested to 3X to eliminate small sample set issues (small because you can't test thousands of these things)). Things like the motors, etc. are designed to give 5 years of life (5 years is the instrument design life, again tested to 3X, so most (but by no means all) will last longer with proper maintenance). In our case, the warrantee is decided beforehand for the most part. We build to match.
Believe me, we can't make a product that fails right after the proverbial 90 days. If we did that, about 30% of them would fail in warrantee, and that would be EXPENSIVE. Very expensive. We generally want well under a 1% failure rate.
Something less complex can be done a little closer, but figure that anything needs at least a 30% buffer. Overdesign costs less than warrantee replacements.
Well, I'm about 6ft 5, so that's just about the right height for a woman.
Seriously, I'd be MUCH more interested if the carvings predated the stone arrangement...
Mind you, I'm thinking about angles perpindicular to the direction of airflow. I'm not sure what the effect would be on angles where the edge follows the direction of airflow... probably not all that much.
Regardless, I don't think comfort of the passengers is high on the list of design requirements for planes (beyond the basic 'passengers must not die or bleed excessivly') anymore. Efficiency (i.e. streamlined and max people) is the current requirement.
And I don't consider that flamebait. I'm a real engineer too. :)
No. See bold for incorrect word. Creationism and ID do not make a hypothesis in the scientific sense.
"Are both not scientific methods used to try to defend these hypotheses?"
No. See above for creationism/ID. Evolution is a theory (scientific terminology, not popular, see below), not a hypothesis.
Hypothesis propose testable results. In the case of creationism/ID, there are none. Prove god exist, scientifically - Can't be done. Prove the earth was created 6000 years ago (young earth creationism) - Demonstratably false. Creationism has no tests that cannot be applied to it, so it fails to be even a hypothesis.
Evolution: Theory. Not only does it have results we can test the validity of (example: result from hypothesis: birds should have more genes in common to other birds than bacteria. Test: Found to be true. Therefore, theory holds up). Even where evolution has 'bugs', it's not in the overarching theory, but in the details. In the large sense, evolution is TRUE. In the large sense, F=ma is true... only in certain details at odd times do you need to modify (not throw out) that fact.
"You may have been subject to a creationist who doesn't use scientific methods to try to defend the creationist stance."
True, if you replace 'a creationist' with 'all creationists'. Even the creationists with science degrees seem to forget the scientific method when they talk about creationism.
"Without being biased, evolution and creation are both theories that are in the process of being proven through scientific method. Both have their 'good' and 'bad' scientists with their methods, but creation is just as viable as a science as evolution."
You are being biased. Creationism does not use the scientific method to determine proof. It relies on untestable statements like 'there is too much complexity in the human body for it to have arisen randomly' (a statement which ignores a large number of facts about evolution, but anyway...). That is not SCIENCE.
"MUST be taught as theory"
Which it is. It's right there in the phrase THEORY OF EVOLUTION in every textbook I know of.
"and if being taught as theory, creation has just as much right to be taught as theory."
Hell no. Again, creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a religious doctrine. ID is creationism in a white coat. No changes, it just claims to be scientific without anything to back it up.
"All theories are viable until one is disproven."
A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven to accuratly reflect the observed facts. Again, evolution passes this challenge, creationism doesn't even get over the starting line.
"If science only works on the assumption that evolution is the only possibility, it is not the pursuit of truth"
Correct. Luckaly for us, science does not assume this. Science has shown that with all the evidance currently available to us, evolution IS true. If we encounter something that disproves it, well, we need a new hypothesis (and once tested, theory), but right now, there is no other theory that comes even close to explaining as much about the origin of species as evolution does.
"Teaching our students 'what we evolved from' when it should be 'what is believed we evolved from' is a crime, if it is a crime to allow voluntary prayer in schools (as has been attested in numerous previous posts in this article)"
They are unrelated. Science is not a religion. The government has a strong interest in science education (well, as strong as it has in education itself, anyway). But the government cannot in any way endorse one religious viewpoint over another. So evolution goes into science classes (it not being a religion or a belief system) and creationism goes to comparitive religion (where many religions are studied, creationism being a belief system not rooted in physically ob
Not to nitpick, but that example is drag, not friction. The reason is turbulence at corners, which will result in vortices, increasing drag.
"Inflated tires have a larger surface area"
Ummmm... true, but this is rolling friction. An underinflated tire and a properly inflated tire will actually require the same amount of force to move... if the tires are locked. The deformation of the tire, lack of possible 'slippery spots', etc. increase the force required to move the tire, but not the friction itself (except in that mechanical engineers prefer to make the whole thing easier to work with by 'distilling' all the variables to one easily measured constant, the coefficient of rolling friction. For example, I can take the torque of hte motor of a pump I built and tell you the maximum pressure it will be able to deliver (seals willing)... But the internal 'friction' comes from friction, efficiency losses in the gear train, 'drag' from the lubrication, seal friction, losses needed to recirculate the balls in the linear ball screw, etc. - but it all boils down to 'multiply torque in in-oz by 300* for pressure')
Now, the increased surface area reduces the heat at any given point, reducing the 'liquid film' effect (like how water film makes it easier to move smooth surfaces) as nothing melts. In this way, rather than increasing the frictional coefficient, you assure that it remains at its maximum.
Oh, and just to be sure, I checked my Design of Machine Elements book, and looked it up. Both dry and thin-film lubrication have the same rule (#2): Friction is independent of area.
"how friction increases with relative velocity"
Drag does, but friction doesn't, mostly. Rule 3, both dry and thin-film: The friction force is largely independent of the velocity of sliding.
And now, for the quote on my wall: Never, but never, question the engineer's judgement.
* not a real number, but damned if I'll look it up on my lunch break.
And why should atheists "opt-out" of the pledge (to the point of a universal ban) but Christians and others not be able to avoid Orgy-education and "we weren't created, we evolved" evolution classes? Note I am not talking what is right (true) or not, but if the standard is one student's offense at a dogma can ban it I just want it to be applied equally."
Well, you seem to be trolling, but I wanted to specifically point out the fundimental wrongness of this part regardless. The government has little legal standing to fund schools, but it has more standing to do that then to force religious doctrine. And there is no doubt that is what 'Under God' does. The government is specifically forbidden from advocating any religion. That referance to god is just as clear an establishment of religion as 'there is no god' would be an establishment of no religion.
And as for evolution... Well, the schools are teaching science, so evolution is required. The schools generally do not teach religion, so creation 'science' and CS-a-likes like ID are not to be taught. If the schools do comparitive religion, then that could easily be added to that portion of the cirriculum, of course. But it's not science.
And it's not 'one student's offense'. It's the government endorsing something that it shouldn't that is the cause of the ban. I don't care if NO students are offended. The government should not, in any way, force religion onto them.
Or Michael Madsen.
I differ from your opinion of high ground. The high ground would be to waste the time of BOTH evil organizations by causing them to fight each other rather than innocent bystanders.
That's why, if I were rewriting the constitution, I'd make the senate/house more of a parliment style, where everyone actually does get represented.
Second, adults that can't control themselves are the problem, not drugs. Addiction rates to drugs (including alchohol and tobacco) remain as a constant percentage. The people just decide to get addicted to something else.
And, like prohibition, most of the reason there are crimes associated with drugs are because criminals are the only ones who can sell drugs. You can be damn sure 7-11 won't be accepting stolen stereos for a pack of pot.
Removing the requirement that you pay people a barely adequate wage is not an adequate solution to the problem... Now instead of their being no entry level jobs, no one can afford to TAKE entry level jobs.
Sometimes, bullets are necessary.